Disposed

Santanu Acharjee v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Mar 2021WP(C)/283/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Assistant Professor sought a lien pending selection in Gauhati University. The Court held Government is the appropriate authority under Rule 23 of 2010 Rules, not the Director or Governing Body. It deleted unnecessary respondents and directed the Director to process the lien application after submission of a duplicate.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; unnecessary respondents deleted; petitioner directed to submit duplicate application for lien to be processed by Director per Rule 23 of Assam College Employees (Provincialisat

Santanu Acharjee Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010007292021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/283/2021

¶5

SANTANU ACHARJEE S/O LATE SIBU ACHARJEE

¶6

RESIDENT OF C/O SAKTI PR. MUKHERJEE, HOUSE NO. 92, PUBERUN ROAD, SATGAON, PO UDAYAN VIHAR, GUWAHATI 781171, KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6, KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶10

2:DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM

¶11

KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 ASSAM

¶12

3:PRINCIPAL DEBRAJ RAY COLLEGE GOLAGHAT ASSAM 785621

¶13

4:PRESIDENT

¶14

GOVERNING BODY DEBRAJ RAY COLLEGE GOLAGHAT ASSAM 78562

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U B SARMA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶19

Date : 03-03-2021

¶20

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶21

Heard Mr. UB Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department, Government of Assam.

¶22

Considering the nature of the grievance raised and urged upon at the time of taking up the writ petition, we do not find the respondents No.3 and 4 to be necessary party in this writ proceeding, as such the said respondents are deleted from the array of respondents.

¶23

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics of DR College Golaghat on 05.06.2017. In course of his service in the DR College, the petitioner participated in a selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics in the Gauhati University and on being successful, an order of appointment dated 23.01.2020 was issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶24

As per Clause 5 of the order of appointment, the appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of one year from the date of his joining. As a measure of precaution, the petitioner submitted an application before the Director of Higher Education Assam on 30.01.2020 which was routed through the Principal of DR College, requesting for a lien for a period of one year w.e.f. 02.04.2020. By the said application, the petitioner also informed that the Principal of the DR College was requested to relieve him from 02.03.2020. As it transpires from the materials on record, the said application for lien dated 30.01.2020 of the petitioner was not given a consideration by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. On the other hand, there is a communication dated 22.12.2020 from the

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

Principal of DR College Golaghat addressed to the petitioner that the Governing Body of the DR College and the Director of Higher Education, Assam had disapproved the request for lien of the petitioner and, therefore, he was permanently released from the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics.

¶27

The procedure for grant of lien is provided under Rule 23 of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules 2010 (for short, the Rules of 2010) which is extracted as below:

¶28

“Lien, deputation and study leave to the employees of the Assam Provincialised Colleges shall be granted by the Government for which proposals shall be routed through the Director. The norms applicable to Government Colleges would be applicable in their cases.”

¶29

A reading of Rule 23 goes to show that the lien or deputation to the employees of the Assam Provincialised Colleges shall be granted by the Government for which the proposal should be routed through the Director.

¶30

It being the procedure prescribed by the Rules, the application for lien of the petitioner dated 30.01.2020 ought to have been processed by the Director and forwarded to the Government for its appropriate decision.

¶31

A reading of the communication dated 22.12.2020 does not indicate that the Director had followed the procedure under Rule 23 of the Rules of 2010, inasmuch as, the communication simply provides that the lien was disapproved by the Governing Body of the DR College and the Director of Higher Education, Assam, whereas Rule 23 provides none of the two authorities to be the appropriate authority to take a decision in the matter.

¶32

Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department has raised the apprehension that the application of the petitioner dated 30.01.2020 may not have reached the Director for its consideration. There is no answer to such objection being raised, but we have taken note of that there is an endorsement by the Principal of DR College, Golaghat that the application dated 30.01.2020 submitted by the petitioner had been forwarded to the Director and, accordingly, we are

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

to understand that it was so done.

¶35

To remove the apprehension raised by Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department, we require the petitioner to submit a duplicate copy of the application dated 30.01.2020 to the Director of Higher Education, Assam afresh.

¶36

Upon the duplicate copy of the application dated 30.01.2020 being submitted by the petitioner, the Director may proceed with the said application as per Rule 23 of the Rules of 2010 and do the needful to present it before the Government for its appropriate decision.

¶37

The duplicate copy of the application dated 30.01.2020 be provided by the petitioner before the Director of Higher Education Assam within a period of seven days from today and thereafter, within a period of another two weeks, the Director of Higher Education, Assam may process and forward the same to the Government and the Government may take a decision within a period of one month thereafter.

¶38

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Santanu Acharjee v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santanu Acharjee v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabiur Rahman Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Muzammil Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Niten Borah Vs D. Malakar

M/S Ahinsha Chemicals Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

M/S Ahinsha Chemicals Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Ph. Ruth Joan Singha Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.